When liberal pro-Obama scholars question the legality of President Barack Obama's actions to implement Obamacare, the issue of illegal presidential use of power moves from partisan to frightening.

George Washington Law School's Jonathan Turley is the second most quoted law professor in the nation and a two-time Obama voter. He recently testified before Congress on Obama's extensive use of executive orders and administrative actions to make unilateral changes in Obamacare, immigration policy, minimum wage and the IRS qualifying standards for non-profit status.

As to Obamacare, Obama, so far, changed it in at least a dozen major ways, including, but not limited to, postponing the employer mandate, allowing insurance carriers to let their insured keep an old policy, and, more recently, redefining the Obamacare "hardship" exemption so broadly as to nullify the individual mandate for at least two more years.

Was this legal?

Turley said: "President Obama has repeatedly violated this (separation of powers) doctrine in the circumvention of Congress in areas ranging from health care to immigration law to environmental law. We are in the midst of a constitutional crisis with sweeping implications for our system of government. ... " We are now at the constitutional tipping point for our system."

Turley challenged Congress to re-assert its authority. "If balance is to be reestablished," he said, "it must begin before this President leaves office, and that will likely require every possible means to reassert legislative authority. No one in our system can 'go it alone' -- not Congress, not the courts, and not the President."

Obama sold Obamacare with many now-broken promises. Saving costs was a big one. In 2009, the Congressional Budget Office set the net cost of Obamacare at $599 billion over 10 years -- citing a gross cost of $848 billion less $249 billion in tax revenues and other cost savings. But recently the CBO revised the 10-year price tag to more than $2 trillion.

Economist Jonathan Gruber, the father of Romneycare -- which was the template for Obamacare -- recently admitted that well, no, costs will not be going down. "Covering people with health insurance doesn't save money," said Gruber. "That was sometimes a misleading motivator for the Affordable Care Act. The law isn't designed to save money. It's designed to improve health, and that's going to cost money."

So, Obamacare won't save money, but at least those too poor to afford health insurance will now lead healthier lives, right? Not necessarily.

Oregon expanded its Medicaid program years ago -- the way Obamacare does now -- to include some of Oregon's low-income uninsured. Because of costs, Oregon did this on a random lottery basis. Some got it, some, unfortunately, wanted to but couldn't. But this allows comparisons. Oregon, for example, can now compare the health outcomes of the now-insured Oregonians against those who wanted to get insurance, but couldn't. Surely, the now-insured are healthier compared to those without health insurance.

But there were no significant differences in their health care outcomes. While the newly insured did increase their doctor visits for preventative and primary-care services, some could not get appointments with doctors, many of whom wouldn't take new Medicaid patients. Emergency room use went up 40 percent among the new Medicaid patients, not down -- all for non-emergency medical needs. Forbes health care researcher Avik Roy writes, "The result calls into question the $450 billion a year we spend on Medicaid, and the fact that Obamacare throws 11 million more Americans into this broken program."

Worse, the uninsured dislike Obamacare even more than do those with health insurance. A recent Kaiser Health poll found that among the uninsured, only 22 percent have a favorable attitude toward Obamacare, a far-lower percentage than the 56 percent of uninsured who are unfavorable toward Obamacare.

Before Obama became president, he said if he were "starting from scratch," he'd go with a single-payer system. A few months ago, Democratic Senate leader Harry Reid was asked whether Obamacare would lead us to single-payer. Reid said, "Absolutely." This is the real plan.

Single-payer is universal healthcare system used in Canada. It remains popular. But in 2009, the incoming president of the Canadian Medical Association said: "(Canadian doctors) all agree that the system is imploding. We all agree that things are more precarious than perhaps Canadians realize." What did the outgoing CMA president propose? He said: "A health care revolution has passed us by" and "competition should be welcomed, not feared." So while the Canadian Medical Association urges more competition and privatization, America moves toward even more government involvement in health care.

In the annual index of countries rated on "economic freedom," the United States -- since 2008 -- has slipped from the No. 5 position to No. 12. Canada -- at No. 6 -- is now more "economically free" than the United States! Economic freedom and prosperity go hand in hand.

Yet this administration makes it clear it is more interested in wealth re-distribution and less interested in wealth creation. President Obama is quite adept at the former -- clueless about how to achieve the latter.

ObamaCare is officially the law of the land----w/ obamba unilaterally changing or delaying sections to exempt hand-picked voting blocs----in order serve the social justice interests of the Obama administration and the Democratic Party.

OBAMA/CARE IS A SOCIAL JUSTICE LOTTERY......and, IMHO, is eminently prosecutable under those terms.

ANLYSIS Obama called Americans' cancelled health plans "substandard". Ergo, a good lawyer would construct his legal arguments around the fact that Obama means Americans must buy plans HE likes---plans he specifically designed to serve his social equity and income redistribution goals......

......same as a state lottery redistributes income to education, etc.....to achieve socially beneficial goals......

In Obama's calculated view, "some" Americans must now pay first-class fares for coach seats so that "hand-picked" Americans can pay less, and receive extra benefits.

O/Care induces every American into paying into the program. Some people "win" subsidies, tax breaks, deferments, exemptions, etc, while others are "losers"---excluded from these benefits.

REFERENCE (I'm sure the law books have better examples): The following is an example of a Federal Statute defining Lottery:

According to 12 USCS § 25a, lottery" includes any arrangement whereby three or more persons (the "participants") advance money or credit to another in exchange for the possibility or expectation that one or more but not all of the participants (the "winners") will receive by reason of their advances more than the amounts they have advanced, the identity of the winners being determined by any means which includes--

(A) a random selection;

(B) a game, race, or contest; or

(C) any record or tabulation of the result of one or more events in which any participant has no interest except for its bearing upon the possibility that he may become a winner. (SOURCE uslegal.com/lotteries)

And there’s no way the dimmos in the Senate would convict. And there won’t be enough votes for an impeachment conviction even if the Senate goes Repub. The dimmos would never do what’s best for the country, but rather their party.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.